Fredheads, It's Time to Support Mitt

The Jawa Report ^ | January 22, 2008 05:18 PM | Dr. Rusty Shackleford

[Checkers]

Dear fellow Fredheads,

It's time to support Mitt Romney. Can Mitt win in a general election? I don't know. Certainly he has always had a better chance than Fred. And if the opposition is Hillary Clinton, then maybe.

McCain can beat Hillary. But McCain is, well, McCain.

To be honest, I'm not as down on McCain as most of my fellow Jawas and you, the readers. But that's just because I've been a one-issue guy since right around, oh, let me see, I think the date was 9/11/2001.

But still, McCain doesn't get that the border is tied in with our national security.

Mitt does. And he seems to get the war on political Islam.

Sure, Rudy also seems to get both, but it's probably too little too late for him.

I'm hearing some oddball theory that a lot of Fredheads are natural Huckabee supporters. That's insane. Like, certifiably insane.

It's built on the presumption that the evangelical supporters of Thompson are in the same boat as the evangelical supporters of Huckabee. I got news for Tom Edsell: they aint the same animal. Sure, they may have the same funny accent, and so I'm guessing that to an outsider like Edsell the presumption is that they must be the same species. But they're not.

[CottonBall]

BTW, one more aspect that I am considering w/r health care - I would like to retire early, but it looks like I’ll need an extra $500,000 just to cover the cost of individual health insurance for 20 years. At least. It’ll probably be more than that as I get older. And then I’d get dumped as soon as I have a pre-existing condition, which is probably inevitable with age.

So I’d have the money to retire early with no problem. But can’t because of health care costs! That’s insane.

I’ve been telling people that if McCain or Huckabee is the (R) nominee, I might as well vote for Hillary. At least, I’d get Hillary-care out of it! (Truth be told, I’d never vote for any of the 3 if I stay sane)

[Hat-Trick]

Dear fellow Fredheads,

It's time to support Mitt Romney.

Dear Dr. Rusty,

Get Snapped.

Sincerely,

Hat-Trick

[dmw]

“...if the party is this friggin’ brain dead to have this gimpy-assed stable as the remaining standard bearers - well, we’re hosed. There is no other way to describe it.”

You’ve described it accurately.

[CottonBall]

glad you’re doing well.

[Hat-Trick]

Here's another of my favorites:

[CottonBall]

If he's the nominee, I will pray I am wrong about him, and that he is sincere in the newfound conservatism he claims. At this point, I have severe doubts, and consider him merely the least offensive of the remaining GOP candidates which all fall woefully short of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.

I feel the same way, but for some reason I can't figure out, I think he'll follow through on his conversions more than McCain, Huckabee, and Guiliani. I can't really state why though - and that worries me.

[dirtboy]

I never thought Bob Dole could be attractive by comparison. I still got dimples on my nose from voting for him.

I'd have to staple-gun my fingers to my nose to vote for the remaining GOP choices this time around.

[chaos_5]

I'm hearing some oddball theory that a lot of Fredheads are natural Huckabee supporters.

Dirty rotten lies!

[CottonBall]

I’d rather vote for a candidate who promises to do what I want, than one who promises to do what I don’t want.

That's true. I figure that at least Romney states he is against amnesty now before the election. Even Reagan made a mistake on that one - a big one. I just don't know if Romney has the whole conservative philosophy that is crucial.

[dirtboy]

I think he'll follow through on his conversions

His 'Who Let the Dogs Out' stunt yesterday should show that Mitt will say or do ANYTHING to get a vote. And such a man simply cannot be trusted, IMO.

[Salvation]

I won’t follow your suggestion.

I will write-in Fred Thompson when it is my day to vote!

[dirtboy]

I figure that at least Romney states he is against amnesty now before the election.

He also stated he was for Roe before he was after Roe.

He supported amnesty before he was against it.

I have utterly no idea what Romney stands for, other than he wants to be president.

And any candidate with that mindset is a danger, no matter what letter comes after his name on the ballot.

[CottonBall]

What is the dog stunt thing?

[MHT]

Bad as Mitt is, Mac is worse (Keating 5, Gang of 14, campaign finance, anti-Bush tax cuts, amnesty...he’s done more wrong than Right).

[CottonBall]

Well, I heard the explanation for his switch on abortion and it’s plausible.

I haven’t heard his reasons for switching on amnesty, though. That’s issue #1 for me.

I’m pretty confident that McCain, Huckabee, and Guiliani will sign an amnesty bill. All 3 passed much worse laws/bills helping illegals than Romney did. So that’s why I think there’s more of a chance he’ll stick with what he is saying at this point.

[dirtboy]

What is the dog stunt thing?

Mitt was singing "Who Let the Dogs Out" to a less-than-appreciative crowd at an MLK parade yesterday.

Get it straight. I'm semi-whitebread.

He is double-bleached whitebread. Trying to pretend otherwise just confirms he will say or do ANYTHING to pander to voters.

[TheLion]

Specifically, which gun did Mitt grab from you?

[CottonBall]

That’s couldn’t have been pretty.

[dirtboy]

Well, I heard the explanation for his switch on abortion and it’s plausible.

Yeah. He needed to be pro-abort to run against Ted Kennedy in 1994. And he needs to be pro-life to gain the GOP nomination now.

Forgive me if I fail to mistake his political calcuations for something remotely resembling principles.

[hiredhand]

Well! There we have it! It MUST be true now that I've "seen it on the Internet"!!!

Sorry, but his act involving his newly purchased NRA membership and his story about a youth spent hunting and the gun that he "once owned" stitched it up for me. Yeah buddy...He SUPPORTS the Second Amendment because he's a HUNTER!!! ...and we all know that the Constitution affords the right to Keep and Arm Bears!

He's a panderer, and therefore a liar, and we will not vote for him, or anybody who pretends to be something they're not. We are disgusted and fed up and really have nothing to lose at this point. Have you ever fought with somebody who had nothing to lose? NOBODY wants to fight a man with nothing to lose.

You can think us narrow minded, and looking for somebody who simply doesn't exist. But there are enough of us to seriously offset the conservative voting base, and we will NOT vote for RINOs, and that includes Romney.

I think Jim Rob's own advice was well issued a couple of weeks ago when he mentioned "putting our heads between our knees and kissing our asses goodbye", because I can't say at this point who will win, but I think it's safe to say who is going to lose.

You see, here's the problem. Right now, some support Romney. Some support McCain. Some support Huckabee. Guiliani has become a moot point. Hunter and Thompson are gone, as is Tancredo. I think more support Romney than any other, but therein lies the problem. At some point, it's probably going to come down to just Romney. I don't like him, but I'm not stupid. I can see what's happening, even if it's not going to work out in the end like everybody thinks it is.

The real problem are those in my group, and those following Ron Paul. As opposed to the "Anybody But Hillary" crowd, my group is more akin to a "Anybody But Democrats and RINOs, Or Any Mixture Thereof" crowd. These two cross sections are what will throw the "conservative" voting base off of its axis. There are enough of us to do it.

We haven't changed in our stance of "NO RINOs Or Democrats!" and the Paulites are going to follow their guy to the bitter end.

So the big question is "how many" of us are there? That's the question everybody needs to be asking. Because it's going to come down to basic math in the end. I "think" there are enough of us to really impact things in November 2008. I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not. All you have to do is go through a thread such as this one, and see all the major camps I mentioned above. It's all plainly observable, and the outcome is predictable.

Unfortunately, we're all going to do what we believe is right, and we're all going to suffer for it. Nobody wins in the outcome.

So why do men fight if they know they're going to lose? Do you have a "reason" to fight? ...even knowing you're going to lose? We have a reason....which is why we will act with NO FEAR...which is why I'm explaining what is going to happen.

We're too fractured as a conservative voting base and too many people are simply going to stay home out of anger. Even if we stayed home (which we won't), we're all still going to "lose". Those two groups I mentioned above are pretty much going ensure it.

The truly ironic thing of all is that the GOP and the MSM steered a goodly portion of its base into the "corral" that it's in now, and nobody seems to realize this. It appeared to me to be a "setup" from the time they started ignoring Duncan Hunter.